Obama Administration Investigated David Sanger, Too

Obama administration adopts same tactics against journalists as the Bush administration. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza – May 23, 2013, National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C.)

“…our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” – Thomas Jefferson

LONG BEFORE the Obama administration began unleashing secret searches and dragnets on journalists, making reporting a crime, the governmental fetish to police reporting was utilized by the Bush administration, too. The Obama administration, through Eric Holder’s DOJ, has turned up the heat and freaked out sources of national security reporters, which isn’t going to serve the American people. The similarities between the Bush and Obama administrations in this regard is undeniable.

My uncle Dick.

This is not what the U.S. military is fighting to preserve. In fact, as we celebrate Memorial Day and our veterans and those serving today, what’s being done under the Obama administration is in direct conflict with what they have fought and are fighting still to preserve and protect. I assure you, my uncle Dick didn’t fight for this. Free Speech and the right of the governed to know what is being done in our name is foundational to our democratic republic.

The speech President Obama gave last week on counterterrorism had woven into it a defensive crouch regarding the Obama administrations unprecedented investigations into the press reporting. The only conclusion that can be made from this is that the speech was intended to excite Obama’s supporters through another promise to close Gitmo and change the current “war on terror” reach, which garnered applause from the more naive opining that the Bush era was finally over, but which was really another marketing stunt to confuse and distract from the very real threats the Obama administration is conducting against a free press. It’s not like they haven’t used speeches before to rally supporters.

The York Times tells a 2007 tale of a former N.S.A. professional who spent $70,000 defending himself against aggressive governmental snooping that eventually cost him his business and subsequently $300,000 annually. The entire sordid targeting had the desired outcome, which is the same one the Obama administration is getting by making journalists pay for printing information the government doesn’t want the American people to know. It leads to only one conclusion.

Some officials are now declining to take calls from certain reporters, concerned that any contact may lead to investigation. Some complain of being taken from their offices to endure uncomfortable questioning. And the government officials typically must pay for lawyers themselves, unlike reporters for large news organizations whose companies provide legal representation.

“For every reporter that is dealing with this, there are hundreds of national security officials who feel under siege ““ without benefit of a corporate legal department or a media megaphone for support,” said a former Obama administration official. “There are lots of people in the government spending lots of money on legal fees.”

[…] “There seems to have been a shift in attitude,” said Steven Aftergood, who directs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. “The latest revelations indicate that reporters’ communications are now fair game.”

In a separate case last year, F.B.I. agents asked the White House, the Defense Department and intelligence agencies for phone and e-mail logs showing exchanges with a New York Times reporter writing about computer attacks on Iran. Agents grilled officials about their contacts with him, two people familiar with the investigation said.

The intense investigation into Sanger is a little confusing. There were discussions when the story came out about how it seemed the White House may have leaked the story. Or, at the very least, they liked it. It showed the President taking action against Iran during election season. Sanger told Gawker’s John Cook the White didn’t protest the story being released. The White House didn’t actually leak the story, Sanger said, but they didn’t fight him about it either.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

12 Comments

Joyce Arnold
May 26, 2013 at 10:29 am

I’ve seen the “Bush era was finally over” claims, or maybe it’s more cross-my-fingers-and-hope-it’s-true. This makes no sense to me, and that’s based on my perspectives on what Obama says and does. As many have noted, it’s highly unlikely a WH resident is going to give up executive power.

Anyway, when reading the “Bush era over” thing, immediately following my “how do you reach that conclusion” response was, “we’ve really, really set the bar low.”

fangio
May 26, 2013 at 1:21 pm

Say what they want, it’s good old fashioned Nixon paranoia.

ladywalker68
May 26, 2013 at 2:13 pm

I have come to the conclusion that Obama is really Bush III. Both have been puppets of the military industrial complex and Wall Street.

Those of us who are treading water just to survive every day have no champions left. This includes the middle class, elderly, poor, and the young who are just trying to get on their feet. If you don’t have some financial advantage to begin with, you are basically screwed. The country used to have provide a way you could make something of your life if worked hard and did everything right.

Now our leaders commit crimes against humanity without batting an eye, as if we are somehow entitled to torture, maim, and kill whoever we want, whenever we want because we have the power and we can.

The Presidents are merely figure heads with no real power. They are just executing the agenda of the chosen ones, the rest of the country and world be damned.

Obama is no different that Romney would have been. He just put on a better act during the election.

secularhumanizinevoluter
May 26, 2013 at 2:30 pm

“Obama is no different that Romney would have been. He just put on a better act during the election.”

ladywalker I have far to much respect for you to say what immediately comes to mind …….Obama is far from a saint or perfect…but “no fifferent than Romney”?!!!!!

ladywalker68
May 26, 2013 at 5:20 pm

I call it as I see it. I hoped he would be different but so far we have:

1. Him going after Social Security with the chained CPI.

2. Not standing in the way of Keystone.

3. Not going after Wall Street.

4. Lots of Word Salads on gun control but no control.

5. Drone attacks.

6. Spying on journalists.

7. Weak, weak, weak handling of Benghazi to the point of giving the Rethugclicans a tool for the 2014 and 2016 elections.

8. Using terrorism as a blank check to do whatever to whom even when ever and where ever the US pleases….

9. Lip service to those of us who where lipstick from time to time but a patriarchal attitude when it comes to Plan B.

10. A good friend to the wealthy and the corporations.

I am trying to figure out what Romney would have done differently in these scenarios, except probably being a bigger doofus and bafoon while doing them.

JMO.

fangio
May 26, 2013 at 7:39 pm

You just don’t understand the utter complexity of his thought process.

secularhumanizinevoluter
May 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Gee, this sounds remarkably like the sort of thing my posts have been deleted for since the new be nice policy….or was it just a secularhumanizinevoluter has to be nice polict?

secularhumanizinevoluter
May 26, 2013 at 8:26 pm

“I am trying to figure out what Romney would have done differently in these scenarios, except probably being a bigger doofus and bafoon while doing them.”

Well for starters you could kiss reproductive choice good bye. And you could forget about any support for marriage equity or gay rights in the military or legal sphere.
Like I said….he is what he is…and I am not thrilled to death with him….BUT….he is WAY better then what was the alternative.
I would give just about anything on this world to have my brother, my best friend and those two beautiful young women back…..and had Obama been president while they were alive they in all probability still would be.,

ladywalker68
May 26, 2013 at 11:10 pm

The only point I will give you is on the Gay issue and that is a huge difference.

As far as reproductive rights, the jury is still out on that. At best, Obama is uneven on the issue.

His willingness to throw seniors under the bus is loathsome.

secularhumanizinevoluter
May 26, 2013 at 2:27 pm

“I assure you, my uncle Dick didn’t fight for this. Free Speech and the right of the governed to know what is being done in our name is foundational to our democratic republic.”

Youe Uncle Dick along with my Father and Uncles were fighting for the Country and “Freedom” while out right censorship was standard and every, EVERY news story had to be cleared through government controled outlets.
Was that right? That is debatable…but it was an accepted fact of life.

And now, folks are calling those who see what’s happening now as DANGEROUS paranoid? Seriously??

Angela

fairmindedindependent
May 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm

I don’t care if its a Democrat or Republican or Independent President, this abuse of power is wrong and this is not what the founding fathers wanted and that’s why they created all the separate branches of government to keep check and balance. The Congress crossed the line when they gave Bush more power especially when it came to war. The two party system is not working no more. A government institution should never go after groups because of their name and no DOJ should go after journalists that do their jobs just because they work for a network that disagrees with their political views. When the President does good, say so and congratulate him, when he does bad, say so and con-dim him. This is a Democracy that’s what were supposed to do but instead people want to defend their party and candidate no matter what he or she does. That’s going to hurt this country in the long run.